MR CHAMBERLAIN'S GREAT SERVICE TO UNIONISM.
OUR readers are aware that we have never approved of Mr. Chamberlain's proposal to offer the Irish Party two Legislatures framed on the Canadian system, one for three. fourths, or perhaps four-fifths of the territory of Ireland, and
the other for the remaining fourth or fifth, and to insist that all the Acts of such Legislatures shall be subject to revision at Westminster by the United Parliament of the Two King- doms, the administration of justice remaining in the hands of the central Legislature. That proposal seems to us to be subject to two fatal objections,—one, that if it were forced on Ireland, it would not even advance the general solution of the Irish Question, since it would leave Parliament as much at the mercy of the Irish Members as ever ; and the other, that it would certainly never be accepted willingly by the Irish Party, who would probably prefer the situation as it exists, or if they did not, would only recognise in the new arrangement a powerful lever by which they could unsettle everything, and secure a still more complete revolution.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chamberlain's very powerful speech at Glasgow on Tuesday brings out with new force the great service that he has done to the Unionist cause. That service is that he has fairly hammered into the public mind, by the constant reiteration of his most powerful expositions, this one fact,— that the party of Mr. Parnell have no intention whatever of con- sidering seriously the wish or judgment of the representatives of Great Britain in this matter ; that they regard the Irish Question as one in which they are to dictate, and we are to accept their dictated terms, whether they be conformable to the interests of Great Britain or not. They do not look at the matter as a subject for negotiation at all. Mr. Gladstone has offered them terms which the Irish Parliamentary representa- tives were ready to accept,—though, so far as we can judge, they were never really understood by the people of Ireland at all,—at least as a basis for discussion ; but when they found that Mr. Gladstone could hardly persuade even the majority of his own party to accept the general proposals of his Bill,—and especially the virtual independence of the Irish Legislature of the Legislature at Westminster,—then they barred the way to compromise, and have never given even the trace of a disposition to yield further. So far as Ulster is concerned, although, in his great speech of last year, Mr. Gladstone announced that the Government would consider any security that could be devised for the Ulster minority, there has, we believe, never been the slightest vestige of a disposition in the Irish Party to give way ; and on this point, no doubt, as well as on the question of any real and practical revision of Irish legislation at Westminster, the Conferences of the Round Table practically broke down. It seems, as Mr. Chamberlain said at Glasgow, childish to suppose that Mr. Morley accurately described that failure as being due to the harsh tone of Mr. Chamberlain's letters and addresses outside the Conference. If there had been the least prospect of bringing Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain back to the Liberal fold by any concession, we may be quite sure that that concession would have been offered with no little formality. And, as a matter of fact, every one seems to admit that no such concession was so much as mentioned. It is hardly doubtful that Mr. Chamberlain is right in assuming that when Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Morley came to talk the conditions of the Conference over with Mr. Gladstone, the final difficulty was always this,—that the Gladetonians had pledged them- selves to give satisfaction to the Irish majority, though the Irish majority had never even contemplated for a moment giving satisfaction to the British majority. On the part of Great Britain, it was to be all give and no take.
Now, if Mr. Chamberlain had only done the great service of hammering this into the British mind, it would be an inestimable service. It is not really the British Parliament which is to settle the matter; it is four-fifths of the Irish con- tingent to the British Parliament which is to settle the matter. Unless you can satisfy these four-fifths of the Irish representa- tives, you can do nothing. Though the matter is one of the most momentous concern to Great Britain, though the future of this Empire obviously depends in great measure on the settlement with Ireland, the wishes of 585 British and Irish representatives are not to be considered, unless the remaining 85 Irish representatives can be fully satis- fied. That is virtually the situation, as Mr. Chamberlain has proved, and we must say that a more unconstitutional situation can hardly be imagined. Of course, it would be not utterly unreasonable for the Irish Party to say,—what we believe to be the truth,—' What we want is revolution, but as we have not physical force enough to get it by war, we will get it by obstruction, and until our full terms are conceded, we will pursue the effective method of a Parliamentary blockade which Mr. Parnell has devised.' That, we say, is, from the revolutionary point of view, a fair enough contention. But then, let the British people clearly understand, when they are told that Mr. Gladstone has found the Irish Party reasonable and constitutional, that this is not so at all ; that all he has found is that they are disposed to accept certain terms which are not regarded as tolerable by the majority even of his own fol- lowers, but that beyond that point the Parnellites will not move one inch ; and that, in fact, it has been found impossible to offer a single rational concession beyond the terms which Mr. Gladstone proposed, but which he could not get even his own party to accept ; for, of course, amongst those who voted with him, a very considerable number were pledged to reject the exclusion of Irish representatives from Westminster, and to insist on a practical revision of Irish legislation at Westminster. Whenever, therefore, the question goes again to the con- stituencies, it will,—unless the Round Table be moat unex- pectedly revived, and Mr. Parnell turns out to be squeezable,— go in this form : that the representatives of Great Britain and one-fifth of the representatives of Ireland are asked by Mr. Glad- stone to surrender entirely the interests of their constituencies on the question of the Union, to four-fifths of the representa- tives of Ireland, without condition, and without appeal except to force, if the solution offered by the latter prove intolerable. This is the great contribution of Mr. Chamberlain to the Irish Question, that by his persistency in pressing on the Gladstonian Liberals the concessions which would be satisfactory to him, without result, he has demonstrated that it is not a matter for discussion or negotiation in a Parliamentary sense at all, but a question of a revolutionary ultimatum, the revo- lutionary ultimatum to be presented by 85 Irish representa- tives to the remaining 585 representatives of Great Britain and the North of Ireland. Now, does any serious Gladetonian imagine that with this ultimatum before them,—and it is, we believe, absolutely nothing else,—the constituencies of Great Britain and the North of Ireland will give way ? If he does, he must have a very poor opinion of our con- stituencies' resolution and patriotism. If he does not think this, he must believe that Mr. Gladstone is leading his party to certain defeat. And we must say that, in our opinion Mr. Chamberlain, though he has advocated a solution which seems to us impossible, will be the general who, by pressing him in flank, will have caused that defeat. For it is Mr.
Chamberlain, and he only, who by his persistency in urging on the country a concession to the Irish party which is, in our opinion, far too great, has elicited that no concession at all is to be got out of them ; that the real Home-rulers mean to insist on a surrender without terms to Mr. Parnell's ultimatum. Sometimes a man who, like Mr. Chamberlain, is disposed to concede too much, renders a great service by proving the indis- position of the opposite side to concede anything. As it seems to us, Mr. Chamberlain, as he brought out so powerfully in his Glasgow speech, has made it manifest that the English Home rulers are determined to satisfy Mr. Parnell's demands, °odic gee eatite,—in other words, that it is a question of a revolu- tionary ultimatum, not of a constitutional settlement.
Previous page
